Talk:T. S. Eliot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial text

Eh, does the "well known school joke" really add anything to the writeup? I don't think so, and it really makes the site seem less professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.209.170 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2002 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

--Space monkey 18:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)This page needs some information on Eliot's career as a critic. His criticism is probably just as influential as his poetry. Unfortunately I don't know much about it so I can't add anything. I think he basically invented New Criticism.

--Eliot didn't invent the New Criticism. F.H. Bradley did, for the most part, using Eliot's and other's ideas. Why isn't Eliot's well-documented antisemetism mentioned in this long article???

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bradley/ makes no mention of Bradley's invention of New Criticism. Not that I think it's something I'd like to be credited with inventing ... --Quadalpha 07:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you're confusing F.H. Bradley with F.R. Leavis. ND

--Pastricide 02:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Anagram comment moved to anagram. I won't shed a tear if it is removed from there too. --mav

I agree. It is more appropriate under its new heading... along with another new anagram about the father of the current U.S. President. --Dante Alighieri

The page at present says that Eliot was on the translation committee for the New English Bible. Is that really true? I haven't found any evidence that he was, though admittedly I haven't looked very hard, and he is known to have been extremely rude about the translation when it was published. He wrote

We are, however, entitled to expect from a panel chosen from among the most distinguished scholars of our day at least a work of dignified mediocrity. When we find we are offered something far below that modest level, something which astonishes with its combination of the vulgar, the trivial, and the pedantic, we ask in alarm what is happening to the English language?

Anti-semitism

I'm unsure of whether Eliot ever "expressed regret" about his anti-semitism, which is a fairly consistent thread throughout his work. Also, I'm unsure about copyright goings-on, so didn't include a quote from "Burbank...", although including a passage would be worthwhile, I think. e.g.:

"But this or such was Bleistein’s way:/ A saggy bending of the knees/ And elbows, with the palms turned out,/Chicago Semite Viennese." --Eddy b 12:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is anti-semitism later in his work? There are no references to Jews in "Four Quartets", for example. The "Burbank" poem you quote is one of his earliest poems, written when he was in his 20s, yet you'd tar his whole life with a youthful indiscretion. Incidentally, the poem is no longer covered under copyright, that's why things up to "The Waste Land" are published in thrift editions. CRCulver 15:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the phrase "as a major poet" from the criticism section. It used to read "more crucial to Eliot's reputation as a major poet.", which isn't fair: the quality of his writing doesn't depend on the validity of his views. --Eddy b 13:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The wole issue of Eliot's anti-semitism should realy be placed in a wider context; a number of other first-generation English-language modernists, especially those born in the U.S., shared them. I'm thinking of Ezra Pound and H.D.. Even the Jewish Gertrude Stein supported the Vichy Government and (in 1938) petitioned the Nobel Peace Prize Committe to award Adolf Hitler. It seems that there was something in the class/social/religious/whatever background of late 19th/early 20th century New England intellectuals that led them into this position. We risk the danger of judging retrospectively by our mores when we write about them. I imagine they just saw nothing wrong with it; for both Pound and Eliot there is a more or less explicit economic aspect to their views as expressed. Pound certainly expressed regret in later life; not so sure about Eliot, but all the explicit references are early on in his work. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Eliot not only had respect for Jews after the disasterous For Lancelot Andrews lecture tour, but he had it before, as well. He had numerous friends who were Jews before and after, and Peter Ackroyd records his being uncomprehending when his Jewish friends took offense at his comments. Of all the Modernist anti-semites, TSE was the most clueless, the shallowest. His was also the most religious and least economic, and that in a very, very, very peculiar way. He really did have visions of a Christian mandate in Western Culture, I think, and, when he was an anti-semite, he was, at the same time, on a campaign to save The Big Western Core. He saw that as an exclusively Renaissance-Christian tradition. He was disabused very shortly afterward. Nowhere that I'm aware of were there any anti-semitic actions by him, any anti-semitic praising of Hitler, any Blue Shirts or donations to fascists. His very vanished-hearth Christianity prevented his liking the machine-worshipping fascists. (N.b. he always, always, always opposed the Futurist manifesto of the machine and the New Order, to my knowledge.) To condemn him for anti-semitism at this point is not merely to judge from a distance, but to judge his entire life and career on the basis of about 2 years of speaking. Geogre 02:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It was actually Pound who toned down Eliot's early racism; at least, he removed the phrase "dead jews' eyes" from the Waste Land. I hardly imagine this was the result of Pound's moral sensibilities - he really was a fascist; more likely he either a) thought this phrase is bad poetry, or b) thought it unwise to be so explicitly nasty in an early work by which Eliot's reputation would be judged. If b) then it's a bit soft to suggest that "they saw nothing wrong with it". And whether or not Eliot expressed regret, mentioning his anti-semitism isn't "tarring his life with a youthful indiscretion": this wasn't one chance remark, it crops up as a theme in much of his work. Early work, at least. --Eddy b 09:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

All examples of anti-semitism are found in his early and immature work. Therefore the attitude can be considered a youthful indiscretion. There are no examples from his later writings, and so one cannot make too much of a deal about the thing. You seem like you won't be happy until the article contains a harsh condemnation of all of Eliot's life and work, but that just wouldn't be accurate. He said some stupid things in youth (as did most of his contemporaries), but in later life, when he created some of his best-known works (e.g. Four Quartets) he was older and wiser. CRCulver 19:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

his best known work, as in most quoted, etc, would is probably Prufrock and the Waste Land - both of which feature anti-semitic sentiment. Of course the article shouldn't be a "harsh condemnation of his life and work", but his anti-semitism IS something often commented on in biography and criticism - and as such should be documented in this article. The fact that "most of his contemporaries" did "stupid things" does not either forgive Eliot his convictions or render irrelevant their existence. I'm sure it's significant that there isn't any anti-semitism in his later work, although I don't think it's merely because he is "older and wiser". I'm not v knowledgeable about his biography, but possibly after his conversion the anti-semitism vanished as the general tone of his poetry changed. This kind of biographical detail would be useful in tying Eliot's bio to the description of his works.

Would you like to back up your argument with, say, a quotation or two? Or maybe even sign your name? --Quadalpha 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "Eliot also wrote a letter to the Daily Mail in January 1932 ..." has an implied accusatory tone. What Eliot wrote is strictly logical and pragmatic, i.e., something like "an idea should be be rejected outright because of its associations." Any objections to a rewording/moving/temporary removal of the paragraph? --Quadalpha 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. It is clear from the context of Eliot's text that he is not endorsing Fascism or Nazism but making a simple point in logic. Yes, the passage in the article should be removed. 151.202.47.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.172.198 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes around the Anti Semitism subheading? Whether or not one agrees that Eliot was anti semitic for any period of his life, the text that follows is a discussion of the accusations of anti semitism, not of accusations of "anti semitism". Surely the quotes only serve to unjustifiably belittle the discussion below, and are thus POV? --Wordmonkey 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did that because it was previously "prejudice" which wasn't very clear, and anti-semitism or some such was what it was about. I didn't feel comfortable about putting that on its own, as it seemed like an assumption that he was anti-semitic. It needs something to say what the section is about without giving POV either way perhaps. "The question of anti-semitism" or some such, maybe?

Tyrenius 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Something like "Allegations of anti-semitism"? --Quadalpha 22:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Charges of anti-Semitism" as this quotes existing article text.

Tyrenius 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's much better - thanks. --Wordmonkey 14:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question concerning the title of this section. When did Eliot ever make a "Public Expression" of anti-semitism? Certainly not in his poetry. There was only a brief period (about a year and a half) when Eliot included a handful of characters with Jewish names in his satirical verses. The same poems contain characters with Russian, German, French, Italian, Spanish, English, Irish, and Japanese names, and all of the characters come in for satirical treatment. The publishers of the two volumes Eliot's poems appeared in at this time were both Jewish. Also, Eliot's friends Sidney Schiff and Leonard Woolf (who are both Jewish)read and helped revise Eliot's poems before they were published. If any of these men thought Eliot's poems contained anti-semitic sentiments, they would have told him. 151.202.47.29 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree with Geogre on this one; I happen to think that Eliot's anti-Semitism was uninformed and, as Geogre refreshingly puts it, "clueless". Nevertheless, the article itself is not the place for a snow job. Right now, it seems to me that the article is trying to argue that those who believe Eliot to have been an anti-Semite are just plain wrong. I am a passionate admirer of Eliot's work but I do think that the serious charges levelled against him deserve to be outlined in more detail, and as a WP contributor I also think that it's not for us to decide whether or not the charges are justified. The best any version of this article can hope to do is present the current state of the debate as objectively as possible. It may well turn out that that can't be done without bloating the article, in which case we will just have to hive off the relevant section into a new article, replacing it with a short précis and link in this one. But maybe not. Let's see. Lexo (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism and Literary Form

I have partitioned this particular topic apart from the previous for an obvious reason. The anti-semitism of T.S. Eliot can not be discussed meaningfully without at least referring to the work with the above title by Dr. Anthony Julius. None of the above posts seem to have addressed this issue so I am trying to highlight it here. Rather than arguing over the semantics of "charges" / "allegations", the substantial issue of the role of anti-semitism in a body of work as venerable as T.S. Eliot's should be looked into. Summary: The book seems to posit that T.S. Eliot's anti-semitism was not merely a reflection of the anti-semitism of his time, but it actually added to it and nourished it. The anti-semitism was not peripheral to the art, while infact, the latter could not be understood without the former. So obviously we should allot some space for it when we bring up T.S. Eliot's anti-semitism. -Samson 2:23, 23October 2006

Is the case so proven that we can positively talk of Eliot's anti-semitism as opposed to allegations of anti-semitism? Who raised up Anthony Julius as sole arbiter on this charge? Jatrius 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Anthony Julius is not the only person to have said that Eliot's work has anti-semitic tendencies. Tom Paulin has also said so in print, and Christopher Ricks deals with the subject (in IMO a somewhat niminy-piminy way) in T.S. Eliot and Prejudice. Emanuel Litvinoff was the (Jewish) poet who famously read out a poem at a public meeting which Eliot was attending, in which he effectively accused Eliot of, at best, indifference to the suffering of the Jews during WW2. Dannie Abse was sitting in front of Eliot at the time and when there were protests at the poem, he heard Eliot saying "It's a good poem, it's a good poem", apparently in Litvinoff's defence. It didn't stop Litvinoff from being by his own admission a great admirer of Eliot (cf. his appearance in the recent BBC TV Arena documentary on Eliot, where much of this was retold.) My own opinion FWIW is that Eliot's attitude to Jews and Jewishness was complex and did not remain unchanged throughout his career, but having said that, he printed offensive things and allowed them to remain in print. I haven't read Julius's book and what I have read it about does not make me much want to read it. I too admire Eliot's work hugely, more than any other 20th century poet in English, but I accept that it is problematic. No less than Yeats writing marching songs for the Irish quasi-fascist group known as the Blueshirts, or Pound's wartime propaganda broadcasts. Lexo (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I can produce at a 10 to 1 ratio works that disprove the "facts" of works that claim that Eliot was Anti-semetic. Anti was anti fascist. He was anti Germany. He helped the Allied cause. The claims about the poetry having anything to deal with Jews or Jewishness (which is required for Anti semitism) has always been disproven. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Eliot was "anti-semitic". But I don't understand what you mean by saying "The claims about the poetry having anything to deal with Jews or Jewishness (which is required for Anti semitism) has always been disproven." I assume you've read "Burbank with a Baedeker: Blestein with a Cigar", which at the very least flirts with anti-semitic tropes, as does "Sweeney among the Nightingales". What about the statement in "After Strange Gods" about how it was "undesirable" to have large numbers of "free-thinking Jews"? Sure, he withdrew that book, but he made the statement in the first place. I am well aware of Eliot's record as someone who attempted to enlist in the US Navy during WW1 and who worked as a firewatcher in WW2. So what are you saying? That Eliot never had anything less than fulsome praise for Jews or Jewishness as such? Because the record does not bear that out. Lexo (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lexo - Sweeney poems et al are not -Eliot-. As proven by many sources, Eliot creates a view that is not his own. There is such a thing as an abstract narrator and the rest. The people who attribute views to Eliot are the same who got burned when they claimed The Waste Land represented Eliot's feelings and he laughed in their face. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC):::::::

Ottava, I trust you enormously as a scholar of literary biography, but not as a critic. Sorry. "Abstract narrator" is a meaningless concept. Narrators carry within their voices the implication of an origin. I recognise that Eliot do the police in different voices, but I also see that you think that I think Eliot hated Jews - which, by the way, I don't think was the case, certainly not now that I'm reading "The Rock" - and for some reason you need to convince me that he was a lovely fluffy politically correct liberal, when I really don't think that he was. Perhaps the idea that Eliot had some illiberal and anti-semitic prejudices would preclude you from enjoying or admiring his work. It doesn't do that for me, but I am not you. In the meantime, I'm afraid that your comments on about the Sweeney poems etc. are not convincing me. I wish you well. Lexo (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ottava, I am surprised that I should have to remind you that Eliot's own rather disingenuous dismissal of The Waste Land was that it was, quote, "only the relief of a personal and wholly insignificant grouse against life; it is just a piece of rhythmical grumbling." (see [1] here.) That's the opposite of what you're saying. Please, quote me the "many sources" in which Eliot claimed that the poem did not represent his feelings. The "rhythmical grumbling" quote has to be one of the most famous Eliot remarks ever. Lexo (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lexo, if you do not understand that poetry is capable of having a narrator that is not autobiographical or represents the poet in some way, then I don't think you are capable of understanding literary criticism. To not understand that the Sweeny poems and works like The Waste Land are not in Eliot's voice nor do the views expressed represent his own (especially with over 8 different voices within works like The Waste Land), then I don't think you understand Eliot. And if you want sources saying that the poems don't represent his actual feelings, look at the Four Quartets page and subpages that I completely rewrote. All of those sources used say exactly that. I can also provide you far more. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, since I'm not convinced that literature is really a subject, it's quite possible that I don't understand literary criticism. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Cheers! Lexo (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note, Ottava: just because Eliot said that his poems do not represent his own views, why do you believe him? Lexo (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes a lot to establish a narrator as the poet, and even more to establish the narrator as the current poet (see Dante). Poetry is always removed from the individual just as all art is. It is a creation. Philosophically and psychologically, the narrator is distant even if the poet wishes him to be himself. Regardless, Eliot was structing his early poems off of Dante's Inferno, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest he started this idea by 1917/1918. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the kind of stuff that makes me think that literature is not really a subject, as I can find very little meaning in it. Lexo (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you not see the absurdity in you saying that literature is not a subject because the narrator within poetry does not work the way you think it does? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you not see the absurdity in statements like "poetry is removed from the individual"? Ottava, you forget that I am not an Eng Lit freshman. I am a published writer with hard-won opinions of my own. Forgive me for not bowing down to your authority as a critic, but your comments on Eliot do not convince me. If you want to talk about poems having narrators, then let's talk about poets where that is more unarguably the case, such as Browning or Edgar Lee Masters or Edwin Morgan. Sure, there are different voices within Eliot but your personal take on his work does not illuminate it for me. Lexo (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Absurdity? Really? So male authors cannot create female characters? Or use a female narrator? What about female authors using male characters or male narrators? I am sure that you have read plenty of books that do the above, so you actually know there is no absurdity. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you, Ottava. Please explain. Lexo (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity: it's not that I disagree with what you are saying, I'm just not sure that a statement like "poetry is removed from the individual" means anything. Perhaps you can unpack it for me. Lexo (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You made the argument above that the Sweeney poems would represent what Eliot felt. I pointed out that such a thing is not acceptable in literary theory, and pointed out a blatant example of how male authors can write for female characters and vice versa. Furthermore, if you take your idea to the fullest extent, you could attribute all sorts of nonsense to novelists. Does Stephen King really think clowns are evil aliens that want to suck the life out of children? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"You made the argument above that the Sweeney poems would represent what Eliot felt." I never said any such thing. I said "I assume you've read "Burbank with a Baedeker: Blestein with a Cigar", which at the very least flirts with anti-semitic tropes, as does "Sweeney among the Nightingales"." I do not think that there is anything disputable about this sentence. I also quoted from a public lecture that Eliot gave. So? Lexo (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Schindler's List flirts with anti-semetic tropes more than anything in Eliot's poetry, and no one would call Schindler's List anti-semetic. Your "evidence" is not evidence nor does it abide by standard analysis. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

some fiddles to The Waste Land discussion

I've slightly improved the bit on "The Waste Land" & made a few minor fixes elsewhere. The "Waste Land" stuff still needs improvement--e.g. a mention of Eliot's use of Frazer & Weston. (I personally think that the importance of them to the poem is vastly exaggerated, not least by Eliot, but they still should be at least mentioned.) Also, details of his two marriages need to be added, as both wives played major roles in his personal life & his writing life.

I have no idea if Eliot had anything to do with the New English Bible--someone ought to check the available biographies. Doesn't seem likely, but you never know.

There also needs to be a much better (fuller) account of Eliot's first two books (the short poems).

Apocalypse Now

Actually, the poem quoted in 'Apocalypse Now' is 'The Hollow Men', not 'The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock'. If there is any reference in the movie to the latter, I have yet to see it...

How about mentioning Eliot's Order of Merit awarded to him by King George VI

You're incorrect - according to the IMDB Quotation Page for Apocalypse Now, the quotation in question reads "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you - I mean I'm no, I can't - I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's, he's a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas... ". This is from 'The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock'. Perhaps 'The Hollow Men' is also quoted, but Prufrock is in the film. Nick04 16:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Both poems are quoted...Prufrock by the Photojournalist (also quotes Kipling's 'If') and Hollow Men by Kurtz

When does Kurtz quote from the Hollow Men? (aside from the fact of his name) --Eddy b 12:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Marlon Brando (Kurtz) reads 'The Hollow Men' in a scene in the temple, when Dennis Hopper speaks to Martin Sheen about dialectics (which prompts Kurtz to throw a book at him because he is making noise).

Not sure that being quoted in an overblown Hollywood epic constitutes "recognition" as such, but if this list has to be appended to the article, how about adding Evelyn Waugh's novel A Handful of Dust, where the Eliot reference is as clear and explicit as can be. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hollow Men

Contrary to what the article stated, "hollow men" was NOT during his anglicanism period; it was two years before his '27 conversion, in 1925. I've removed the incorrect reference, but don't know where to reinsert a link to Hollow Men. There needs to be some reference in the article to Hollow Men, even though there's no article on it yet, because someone might write an article on it in the future. But I'm not sure what to say about the poem; I don't know very much about it, other than the fact that it is definitely written before his conversion, since everything he wrote after the conversion sucked so badly, and Hollow Men is awesome. But I guess that's too POV to put in the article itself, even though Orwell said the exact same thing when he wrote about Eliot. But whatever. Eric Herboso 02:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to add something about the Hollow Men - I seem to remember that it was originally the last part of the Waste Land, and then got moved out to stand alone. The Hollow Men represents the lowest point in his life before his conversion, and Ash Wednesday illustrates how he converted, and found hope. Some mention should probably be made of "not with a bang but a whimper" as one of the most often quoted lines of all Eliot's poetry? Vhata

Some scholars during Eliot's lifetime theorized that it was the last part of "The Waste Land", but the discovery in 1968 of the original manuscripts for "The Waste Land" (subsequently published and available in paperback) show that none of the material from "The Hollow Men" was ever in it. Crculver 23:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• !! Please, do not say everything after his conversion sucks. I used to be of the same opinion when I was a completely ignorant young atheist. However, the greatness of some of his later poems is readily apparent even to those who disagree with his religion. Even parts of Ash Wednesday, atleast the first and last sections mostly, are mindblowing. But really, Burnt Norton ranks 2nd or 3rd in my mind after the Wasteland and Prufrock. The entire poem is just utterly bananular. Not to mention The Cocktail Party, which reads like an anthology of the most eloquent and heartbreaking thoughts ever put to words. I beg you, reconsider. --B. Phillips 02:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • For that matter, Choruses from The Rock is unbelievable and shows Eliot making a Brechtian sort of verse drama (which he never finished). "And the wind shall say,/ Here were decent, godless men/ Their only monument the asphault road and a thousand lost golf balls." Little Gidding is about as good as it gets. Honestly, anyone dismissing the post-conversion stuff is a person who has no taste for poetry. (Also, anyone who sticks to a "conversion year" for his conversion is a fairly shallow reader. It isn't just that everything prior is religious and Christian, it's that a great deal of it is very explicitly Christian -- and not in the "making a passing quote" way, either. Eliot was no Calvinist: it wasn't a single day's conversion.) Geogre 02:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

outrage

Please, we do not need a reference to an abysmal and unfunny "comedy troupe" prefacing this entry about the most beautiful human of the last century, whom I love more than anything else in the world. The reference is also awkward- a disambigation from a title of one of Eliot's many poems, and can serve as nothing but a strage promotion of this horrid group of lame "comedians". --B. Phillips 10:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what the writer above means. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.80.5 (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Neither do I. Nor do I understand what the writer can be getting at by describing TS Eliot as "the most beautiful human of the last century". Great poet, fascinating critic, interesting if flawed playwright, wonderful publisher, apparently very nice to his second wife at any rate, but...the "most beautiful human of the last century"? I think not. Lexo (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Harvard degrees

Does anyone know what Eliot got in terms of Latin honors (I'm guessing summa), or were they not in use in those days? ZephyrAnycon 21:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I don't think they had Latin honors in them days. The Ackroyd biography says he got something like 4 As, 3 Bs, a C & a D (!) in the courses he took for his A.B. He stayed on a year to do a Master's, which is not graded. They were very complimentary about his Bradley thesis, written largely in Oxford, and accepted it without the usual viva exam. -ZA

But they never gave him his doctorate either. --Quadalpha 07:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Four Quartets

The description of "Burnt Norton" works well here but I don't think it should stand on its own. It might be better to remove it altogether and keep the analyses on the Four Quartets page, or else add summaries of the other three quartets to complement it. --Pastricide 02:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

British or American spelling?

This article has "etherised" in the famous opening lines of Prufrock. The The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock article has "etherized". Which did Eliot actually write? MCB 00:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Eliot had "etherised." --Quadalpha 07:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Guardian article

From this article:

It's not terrible. But then I wouldn't have thought of using Wikipedia as a serious reference source.

No glaring inaccuracies jump out at me. It doesn't list my book in the bibliography, but there are plenty of other useful links. The Waste Land is highlighted and when I click on it, a separate entry for the book pops up. There's a Four Quartets bit, too, and all the plays. And when I click on the year 1922, I get a page telling me what else happened that year. Eliot is at the centre of a whole web of other references.

It's purely factual and not in any way analytical, but then that's all you want from this sort of thing.

Overall mark: 6/10

Anthony Julius is author of TS Eliot, Anti-Semitism and Literary Form

I think he's a bit mean with the 6/10, given what he says. Anything useful we can take from his comments to improve this? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Other than his negative tone, this is a compliment. I don't honestly know what this article can contribute. Sweetfreek 01:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What it can contribute, according to Julius, is not what Wikipedia is designed to do. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; "critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties." It appears he wants more original, intelligent contributions to the body of analysis of Eliot and his work, some original research or insight to go with the facts and useful links. The Wikipedia article is a 10/10, applying his judgement to Wikipedia's own standards of design -- at least, as those standards are written now. Julius wants more than that, and he won't get it, so he'll give us a 6. 207.191.23.56 05:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

(oops)

Adding his book to the Bibliography probably increased the mark ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 10:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Who cares about Julius? He's only a barrister; not a proper scholar. I recommend you read Tom Paulin's essay on his book in Writing to the Moment if you haven't already. -ZA

Prose works, Lit Crit, Political, and Religious

There could stand to be more here on Eliot's part in Bloomsbury and (high) modernism + his falling out with people like the Woolfs after his conversion. There is essentially nothing in this entry on critical matters, such as Eliot's interaction with people and ideas such as Charles Maurras and later on Jacques Maritain with other Christian intellectuals who created a group between/during/after? the wars to address the crises of European culture from a distinctly Christian bearing. This also gets into the need for coverage of his numerous prose works pertaining to these cultural-religious-political subjects and Eliot as a critic of modernity. Nothing on "dissociation of sensibility" and the famous Oxford lectures that came from. Nothing on his dissertation on and influence from F. H. Bradley. Dan Knauss

I think the "dissociation of sensibility" would either be presented over-simplistically or would deserve a page of its own. --Quadalpha 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.olimu.com/Notes/hillier-eliot.pdf

That's in the links section. It seems somewhat dogmatic and narrow-minded. Remove for NPOV?--Quadalpha 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is not relevant as it is not a Wiki entry. It is a link to someone else's point of view. It may be dogmatic and narrow-minded (or not), but it is a published opinion and therefore a valid link. Wiki entries are from NPOV. It isn't up to contributors to monitor external opinions to make sure they all conform to a NPOV. Tyrenius 00:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. :) --Quadalpha 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

The criticism section, specifically its discussion of anti-semitism, should be improved. The current scholarship on this subject draws a strong connection between Eliot's anti-semitic writings and the philosophical underpinnings of Eliot's, and Ezra Pound's poetics. It may be that Eliot, like Pound, viewed his life's work as countering the corrupting influence of Jews on western culture. His primary influence on this subject was Charles Maurras, the reactionary French writer and monarchist activist. Louis Menand has an essay on this subject in his book American Studies. His upcoming book Discovering Modernism : T.S. Eliot and His Context will undoubtedly deal with this subject as well.

There's an interesting assortment of evidence relating to his fascism at the beginning of Paulin's essay on TWL & Keynes in Crusoe's Secret. Maybe this shd be included in the interest of NPOV?

I in my unregistered persona have now expanded the Prejudice section with material from Ackroyd and Paulin. ZephyrAnycon 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading

There are a few titles in the Further Reading which seem rather trivial, in my opinion, compared to such key works of Eliot criticism that have been left out, such as F. O. Matthiesen's The Achievement of T S Eliot. Any comments? -- Simonides 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I think you should amend the links in line with your ideas and see what happens. Tyrenius 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

audio link

What was objectionable with the link to The Waste Land audio? --Quadalpha 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I wondered about that and have left a message on the talk page of Eurekalott who did the rv. Tyrenius 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently a bit of wider promotion of that site on Wiki. Nothing wrong with it in itself. Eurekalott is happy for it to be reinstated, but I'm not fussed. Tyrenius 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Italics

We should get the italics consistent in this article. MOS says plays can be italicised, but I'm not so sure. Longer poems, and many of Eliot's are longer, should likely be italicised. --DanielCD 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

31 June 1917?

There are only 30 days in June; that review must have been misdated. --OliverTraldi 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

T. S. Eliot Family Life

Did he ever have any children? What are some name of his family members? Cousins, uncles?

T.S. Eliot had no children by either of his marriages. - Nunh-huh 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

External link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that page has Google Ad links on it, so it may not be an acceptable external link. This page notes that "sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" should not be linked to, in general. Of course the term "objectionable amounts" is subjective. But I've seen people remove external links based on those sites' use of Google Adsense in the past.

It's also worth noting that the fact that you suggested the Dickens biography from the same site as an external link to Charles Dickens here. Adding a bunch of external links to the same site (in this case, essentially the same site) in multiple articles could be considered spamming. From a quick look at these biographies, I'd say that they don't look any more original or insightful than most biographies that you could find on the web, so given the combination of Google Adsense and the leaning toward spamlinking, I say don't add the link to this page (or an equivalent link to any other page).

Hbackman 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be added, but because it is simply too slight in content.

Tyrenius 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I just tried adding a link to a rather unique version of Eliot's poetry that includes an introductory essay and thoughtful hypertext commentary on The Four Quartets and allows other site visitors to create a login and add their own thoughts/commentary as well. (http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=29). Does anyone have a problem with my adding that link? Why was it deleted? Sorry if I stepped on any toes by just adding the link, but I've posted to talk pages before an no one has ever responded. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone responded to this. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to this link, please see the existing discussions and review at User talk:Andrewmagliozzi. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

This article has been one of favorites on Wikipedia for a long while, though one thing, the picture heading it, I've never really liked. It's a bit small and with the awkward white circle border. Perhaps we should change it to a larger one, from when Eliot was better-known. Or maybe, if those rascals on the Virginia Woolf page can get away with that breathtaking photo of her from before she'd published anything, we could use the sexy one of Eliot in Paris smoking and reading when he was younger. Suggestions? --24.131.209.132 22:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hoppe portrait of Eliot may have been chosen because the date of it falls before 1923 and thus the picture may be in the public domain. This one is my favorite picture of TSE (although I dislike the addition of the cropping oval that was not in the original portrait.) The Hoppe picture is certainly the photo to use for the Waste Land article but I would like the addition of a picture of an older Eliot added to the T.S. Eliot article (maybe down around where his plays are mentioned.) Getting one free of copyright restrictions could be a problem. WikiParker 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary for the image in the infobox to reappear later in the article? It seems a bit redundant. I am going to remove it; if you disagree, I have no problem with it being readded. Mrathel (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Catch-22 reference

I considered adding this item under the "Popular Recognition" section, but I couldn't decide for myself whether it was appropriate:

• In the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, Eliot is noted as a "poet who makes money", leading to a farcical round of characters telephoning each other, shouting "T. S. Eliot!" and hanging up.

-- Jonrock 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please leave it out. It doesn't really say anything about Eliot. Substitute any made-up name in place of Eliot's and there is no change in meaning. WikiParker 22:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems entirely appropriate to indicate the popular recognition which Eliot has achieved and I can't see any reason for not including it. Tyrenius 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would call that literary recognition, not popular recognition, and I would agree that it should be left out. It's far from the best joke in that book and it adds nothing to our knowledge of Eliot. Lexo (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Eliot's Contribution to Literary Theory and Criticism

I have reverted a large block of text recently added under the title Eliot's Contribution to Literary Theory and Criticism on the grounds that it seemed like original research. (It was also put under the heading of 'Charges of anti-Semitism' which doesn't make sense). However it does I think highlight a gap in the current article. The added and now reverted block of text is here. Stumps 20:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cat lovers

Eliot should not be in the 'cat lovers' category (I'm not even going to try to spell it) without sources to back the statement up. DJ Clayworth 03:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eliot is placed in that category because he wrote Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats. Still, I think the category is lame, and don't mind its deletion. CRCulver 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In "The Groucho Letters" (book: 1967) which contains correspondance between Eliot and comedian Groucho Marx, Groucho writes in a letter to brother Gummo about a 1964 dinner party given by Eliot for Groucho in which he found they had three things in common: "(1) an affection for good cigars and (2) cats; and (3) a weakness for making puns." 117.102.152.83 (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Matthew BG

Popular Recognition

I added the following information in the Literature section, under the Popular Recognition sub-heading. The editing has since been removed. Any feedback as to whether or not this is worthy of inclusion and, if so, what changes might enable its replacement on the page? (The quote itself can be verified by viewing the show’s video archives. Would an external link be helpful?)

• The July 18, 2006 episode of The Colbert Report featured host Stephen Colbert interviewing NFL linebacker Dhani Jones. During the course of the interview, Colbert and Jones discussed the latter’s interest in poetry. Host Colbert questioned Jones about his tendency, if any, to appropriate his favorite poets or poems while on the playing field. Specifically, Colbert quoted Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” and “The Hollow Men” by asking if Jones had ever composed an impromptu poem along the lines of, “This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a sack, motherfucker...you are The Hollow Man! Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out [against] the sky, like a patient etherised upon a table.”

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarasvati (talk • contribs) .

A link is essential so the content can be verified. Just put a square bracket each end of the URL to turn it into a link. I suggest also shortening the passage to the essentials. Tyrenius 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the above information belongs in the article on Dhani Jones?? We can always find it by seeing "What links here" from the Eliot page (the traditional way to find 'references'). These explicit lists of "references in popular culture", are - in my opinion - one of the weakest points of Wikipedia. About 15% of the current article on Eliot is devoted to these trivial and generally uninteresting bits of information. Have we really nothing more intelligent or insightful to say?? I would prefer to see the whole section boiled down to two or three sentences with some footnotes. Imagine if we took the same approach with Shakespeare, listing any time any celebrity used a phrase from one of his plays! Stumps 08:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a very good point. However, I see it as worth keeping, but not as something to take up so much of the main article, and I propose moving it to its own article, where the subject can be explored more fully. The permeating of seminal works through culture is a fascinating study. Tyrenius 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

His first wife

Is she Vivienne or Vivien? I can't work out how she should be spelt--Cunningham 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember that Ackroyd refers to the name Vivienne as being the "official" one and that she later chose to make it shorter. --Dada 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dark Side of the Moon

I stumbled upon a book Dark Side of the Moon by T. S. Eliot [2] anyone know more about it? --Salix alba (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read it but my understanding is that it's a book about Soviet-Polish relations prior to the 2nd World War that was published anonymously by Zoe Zajdlerowa. Eliot wrote the preface. Beetlebrow 08:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of T. S. Eliot

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I strongly support this. Stumps 11:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a brilliant idea. I strongly support it as well. ---Charles 15:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

British or American?

The line "... was an American (naturalised British) poet, dramatist and literary critic" seems a bit odd, since all his works were published while he was in the UK. I'd say that he was British, but was previously a US citizen. 82.3.196.17 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of his youthful poems were published while at high school and at Harvard. These have since been collected. And I believe that many of the poems in Invention of the March Hare are from before his settlement in Britain. And in spite of his ultimate comfort in Britain, Eliot retained an attachment to the U.S. for many years. His letters, for example, show that he was desparate to enlist in the U.S. Navy during World War I, and The Dry Salvages is clearly influenced by the places he knew from youth. CRCulver 17:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can consider the nationlity problem fixed by leaving it to the end of the introduction (by-the-way, in 1927 he would have been considered a British subject, not a British citizen.) As for the dates and ages Ackroyd's T.S. Eliot: A Life on pages 55 and 165 says: (1) Eliot arrived in England in August, 1914. This was before his 26th birthday. (2) Eliot was naturalized in November, 1927. This was after his 39th birthday. WikiParker 23:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He was both. Many millions of people are from more than one place. I don't see a problem. Spanglej (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Frivolous Nature of Eliot's Antisemitism

Is it a veritable necessity to dedicate virtually two paragraphs to the alleged anti-semitism of this particular poet? I have the ability to ennumerate a score of incontrovertible reasons regarding precisely why it is, indeed, a fruitless facet of this article. Namely, considering that prejudice was, without doubt, hackneyed in the past (though may not have been properly insinuated or divulged). As time elapses, racism shall dwindle--although I am almost certain that a chief facet of notable individuals throughout history have, indeed, possessed some degree of prejudice (though we neglect to state such allegations in their articles). Shall we also affix accounts of racism to the articles of George Washington, Albert Einstein and Henry Purcell? If, by chance, T.S. Eliot held a political post or even voraciously denounced Jews (such as Bobby Fisher) then, such a cateogry may have possessed an iota of merit. Although nevertheless, this is not the case. I wish to claim this article as an article considerably devoid of neutrality on the presumption that that particular facet of the article was, indeed, contrived by an individual who was personally offended by the evasive insinuations on the poet's behalf--Nalco 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Most current scholarship on Eliot considers anti-semitism a large part of his persona. Eliot researchers I'm acquainted with consider this aspect of his life vital to understanding the poetry. WP must mirror current scholarship, it's how things work here. CRCulver 05:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One must not be apprised thereof with an overabundant two-paragraph description of the poet's alleged Anti-Semitism in order to fathom (even the most profound depths) of his work. And I do, indeed, understand quite lucidly how 'things work around here'--in a manner that is gravely flawed. This is also coming from the mouth of an unbiased individual who will earnestly confess personal contempt for the poet of our discourse. (I do hope those scholars aren't as underqualified as yourself).--Nalco 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as academia in the Western world is now a Jewish dominated domain (especially in the USA and the UK), there is no doubt that these swarms of Jewish academics try to find anti-Semitism in anything, everything, and everyone they can. This is surely the case when it comes to T. S. Eliot. They do not understand how common that mild anti-Semitism was pre-1950 amongst all classes of people in the Western world, even if it was of the petty sort displayed by Eliot in a very small proportion of his work. You are right Nalco -- Eliot's alleged anti-Semitism is blown completely out of proportion in this article; in fact, reading the article would make a reader believe that it was a MAJOR PART of his personality and career, when it fact it is only a VERY MINOR footnote. But again, certain people like to blow things out of proportion to further a certain agenda (let us call it the "Holocaust Religion"). If you want to learn about very well documented anti-Semitism amongst the Modernists, look to Ezra Pound -- but when browsing his Wikipedia article, do we find a WHOLE SECTION devoted to his anti-Semitic beliefs? No, of course we don't, even though there have been entire books written about Pound's anti-Semitism. --172.144.250.61 12:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point being? This seems like a very dodgy insert (Western academia DOMINATED by Jews? SWARMS of Jewish academics? Hello?) which verges on the racist itself. Aside from that, I think its legitimate to explore Eliot's alleged anti-semitism in the light of the growth of Facism and Nazism in his Wasteland period and the fact that even after the truth of the Holocaust came out he didn't retract or justify his remarks. In a lot of his early poetry Jewish figures are often presented as exemplifying all the crass, vulgar, materialistic qualities he hated and are associated with the social decay of Europe he disliked. His private letters are full of anti-semitic and anti-black comments (cf the King Bolo's Black Bastard Queen poems which he thought TERRIBLY funny, one manages to be anti-Jewish and anti-black at the same time!). Having said this, and I am someone who regards Eliot as one of my favourite poets, the Four Quartets being my favourite poem in all probability, its worth remembering that in practise his supposed anti-semitism didn't stop him admiring and being friends with people like Igor Stravinsky, whose Rites of Spring was a massive influence on him. This is a very subtle issue and should be explored carefully. There's little evidence that anti-semitism was key to his work or sensibility but it was an element. His greatest poetry transcends it completely (there is no anti-semitism in the Wasteland, Ash Wednesday or the Four Quartets) and it should be remembered that equally great figures as F Scott Fitzgerald and Fyodor Dostoyevsky as or even more anti-semitic in their work than Eliot. ThePeg 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone substantiate the claim (quoted from the post above)that Eliot's "private letters are full of anti-semitic and anti-black comments"? I think I have read every letter in the volume. It is not full of either. (In fact, there are hardly traces of any kind of prejudice.) 151.202.47.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.172.198 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There have, in fact, been books written about Eliot's anti-Semitism as well (Anthony Julius). This book's argument is precisely the one CRCulver discusses - Julius,and many others, see Eliot's anti-Semitism as an integral part of his poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.160.236 (talk)

The article as is rather underplays the quote from After Strange Gods; Julius gives it as

‘[We must discover]...what conditions, within our power to bring about, would foster the society that we desire...reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.’

--jb 03:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what is it with Wikipedia? I've been perusing biographies here for a short while, and it already seems like every other famous figure from the early 20th century and prior has to have either a disproportionately true or entirely false and slanderous section on anti-semitism. Come on, what is the deal with this encyclodpedia? I personally do not understand what is the intent of this. If the person is notable for their anti-semitism, so be it. Include it. If it is what they are famous/most notable for, then feature it. But having it dominate their biographies is a diservice to this encyclopedia and its readers. This is not a witch hunt for historical figures who are taken out of context to be painted as bigots. Margaret Cho could be painted as a rabid anti-Korean by these sort of tactics, for crying out loud.Piperdown 23:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the two paragraphs regarding Eliot's attitude towards Fascism need to be removed from the section about his alleged "anti-semitism." The passages as they stand may give readers the impression that Eliot was pro-Fascist and/or pro-Nazi, when he was clearly and explicitly opposed to both. Eliot's point is quite clear from the context of his essay: it is not an objection to something to say that Nazis believed it or promoted it. After all, Hitler was a vegetarian. Had he won the war, he would have promoted vegetarianism world-wide. But one cannot argue on that basis that vegetarianism is inherently Nazi, or that supporters of vegetarianism are thereby supporters of Nazism. As Eliot says, every position needs to judged on its own merits and not by who has happened to support it at any particular time. I think now one can see how misleading and irrelevant these two paragraphs are in this section. They should be removed. Valerietse151.202.47.29

Punctuation

At some places, it's The Waste Land, at others, "The Waste Land", Prufrock vs. "Prufrock", etc. Let's go through it and settle on one standard, all right? Biruitorul 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Waste Land was published as a book. It should be in italics so, for the wikipedia source, it should be surrounded with two single quotes on each end to produce the italics in the end result. Prufrock and Other Observations was also a book and so should be handled the same way. "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" was a poem in a book and so it should be surrounded by a single double-quote character on each end (it's the same in the source and in the end result.) Prufrock used by itself could refer to either the book or the poem and should be punctuated in the way it is meant. Four Quartets is strange as each poem in it was published as a book before being conjoined. I suggest that the collection (4Q) be italicized and the poems be quoted. WikiParker 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I redid some. I put "The Hollow Men" in quotes - should it be in italics instead? What about "Ash Wednesday"? Biruitorul 03:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked in the index of Grover Smith's T.S. Eliot's Poetry and Plays and he has "The Hollow Men" in quotes and Ash Wednesday in italics. Both "Ariel Poems" and each one of them is quoted. "The Boston Evening Transcript" is both quoted (for the poem) and italicized (for the name of a publication). Thank you for all the nasty eye straining work you did. WikiParker 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Biruitorul 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sub-section on protests against alledged anti-semitism

I once again deleted the Litvinoff section. There was 1 KB of content in an article already past the KB suggested limit to say, essentially:

A Jewish poet took offence at some Eliot poems and wrote and recited a protest poem. Eliot said he thought the poem was good.

What does this really say about Eliot? And wasn't it covered already in the anti-semitism section? Shouldn't any new content for the room that is left us go to a general discussion of the elements of his poetry, plays, critism and editorship that led to his getting the Nobel prize?

I honestly like the anecdote. I've read this before, it is well written and cited but I just don't think it belongs in this article. If it is submitted again I'll leave it but I hope someone who is familiar with what encyclopedias are for will kill it. WikiParker 23:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-addition of protests against alleged anti-semitism

I think that if there is going to be any information about alleged anti-Semitism at all, it would not do the article any justice whatsoever to omit this foremost, iconic, and genuinely explosive occurrence from Eliot’s colourful life.

All that has been covered in the anti-Semitism section so far are quotations of alleged anti-Semitic lines from Eliot’s work. This does not indicate the personal effects that these lines of Eliot’s poetry had, not only on the Jewish community, but also on the poetry reading public at large; and are not citations of differing possible interpretations of Eliot’s work central to understanding it? I have intended any mention of Litvinoff to merely complement understanding of Eliot’s poetry, for which it is useful.

I had included more details to illustrate how animated and important the event was, but you thought it disproportionately made too much reference to Litvinoff, so this is a compromise; if you would like me to further illustrate the importance of the event again within the article, I will do so.

MetalA 21 March 2007

Chicago?

I removed the Wikiproject Chicago template in the belief that it was irrelevant and probably mistakenly placed. I know of no connection between Eliot and Chicago, certainly no substantive connection, like living or teaching there. The tag was placed by a bot, so I am assuming it was simply an error. If anyone can give reason for the template, they are certainly free to revert. ---Cathal 01:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Eliot was a member of the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought and I think someone picked up on that. It doesn't seems important enough to include in a Chicago collection of articles. WikiParker 10:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was something like that. But, I could not find the Eliot article listed anywhere on the Wikiproject Chicago page. It did not seem to be of any particular relevance to them. As you say, simply not very important. ---Cathal 16:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the Director of WikiProject Chicago. Currently, Eliot's article includes Category:University of Chicago faculty. If this category is correctly included on the article page we would like to have a {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag on his talk page. Do not remove it unless you remove this category from his article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if any identification of Eliot to Chicago disappears but he was a member of the faculty (in a way) and so that category is valid. But there really is no reason to include a ChicagoWikiProject tag here too. People interested in Eliot won't really care about Chicago. I can see why you want the tag but it is really taking the place of a database that Wikipedia is missing. WikiParker 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Hoppe picture of Eliot?

I'm not finding information on why the picture was removed. Can someone point me to a page that has the information?

Removed external link to "Medal of Freedom" website

I've removed the external link to Eliot's page at the "Medal of Freedom" website. To me it appears to be a farm for "Ads by Google" (they are served up in three spots.) The page doesn't contain much that isn't on Wikipedia anyway. Finally, and you really must do this, look at the second picture of Eliot on the page http://www.medaloffreedom.com/ThomasEliot.htm WikiParker (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russel's relationship with Vivien

I think that in the phrase "Russel took an interest in Vivien," the phrase "took an interest in" is too suggestive (esp. when considering it is followed by the speculative hypothesis that Russel may have had a relationship with Vivien)! Others argue, and many of the published letters support, that Russel only reluctantly befriended Vivien as a courtesy to T.S. Eliot, of whom Russel was a professor and .

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "litvinoff" :
  • [http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/archive/londonsvoices/web/interview.asp?pid=6#i414 Museum of London - London's Voices<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • Litvinoff interview

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Focus on Politics

Eliot is considered a significant influence on modern conservatism.[3][4][5] Yet I don't see a single mention of any of this in this article. May I ask why? -- LightSpectra (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"jew"

In the Gerontion quote I've changed "Jew" to "jew" as it is in Eliot's text. Eliot deliberately used the lower case, and some critics think this is significant. Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's "Jew" in the Collected Poems 1909-1962, the standard collected edition of his poetry. Lexo (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have that volume to hand, but the 1952 edition of Complete Poems and Plays 1909-1950 has "jew." It would be interesting to know if Eliot approved the change. I believe, though I don't have the materials to hand to prove it, that what Eliot originally wrote was "jew." This gets us into the question, never adequately resolved by scholars, of whether a poet's originally published text or subsequent alterations should be quoted. I suggest leaving the lower case as it is pending further discussion, especially if I'm correct in believing that that is what Eliot originally wrote. (The 1920 edition of his collected poems is in Google Books and has the lower case form.) Strawberryjampot (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On Eliot, antisemitism, and "fascism"

I believe RepublicanJacobite is right, in principle at least, to revert the previous edit which removed this content:

Eliot also wrote a letter to the Daily Mail in January 1932 which congratulated the paper for a series of laudatory articles on the rise of Mussolini. In The Idea of a Christian Society (1939) he says "…totalitarianism can retain the terms 'freedom' and 'democracy' and give them its own meaning: and its right to them is not so easily disproved as minds inflamed by passion suppose." In the same book, written before World War II, he says of J. F. C. Fuller, who worked for the Policy Directorate in the British Union of Fascists:

Fuller… believes that Britain "must swim with the out-flowing tide of this great political change". From my point of view, General Fuller has as good a title to call himself a "believer in democracy" as anyone else. …I do not think I am unfair to [the report that a ban against married women Civil Servants should be removed because it embodied Nazism], in finding the implication that what is Nazi is wrong, and need not be discussed on its own merits.[45]

However, it seems to me that the previous editor was right, in practice, to remove it from the antisemitism section.

Certainly, there are lots of things to criticize about Eliot, from his arguably reactionary political views (certainly they were conservative, elitist, and traditionalist in the strongest sense of the world) to the limits that he placed on the reading and writing of modern english poetry (birth of the new criticism, the whole objective correlative business, and so on). And, as is most clear in Pound's WWII activities, there is something compatible to "fascism" -- by which we mean the attitudes of the "fascist" governments in the thirties and forties -- in this theory of poetic, religious, even political tradition. This is unfortunate. There are significant grounds for a moral criticism (which Eliot would have somewhat respected) here, as well as the political one, and many poets and critics (Hart Crane, etc.) have attempted one on literary grounds.

So it is understandable, though not ultimately correct, that a previous editor would have included Eliot's unflattering remarks about an alternative kind of freedom or democracy, seemingly in support of the governments that supported the Holocaust, in the section on antisemitism. And, if there was a good deal more of an argument/narrative here, that might even be appropriate, something like: "...these remarks remind us that Eliot's theory of culture, which explicitly rejects certain forms of humanism, has ideological similarities to the ruling methods and styles of governments who would somehow find it appropriate enact large-scale pogroms for particular classes of populations -- pogroms which would lead to, though not by ideological necessity, the mass murdering, indeed Holocaust, of the Jews." This kind of argument, which is indeed an argument, and far from objective, has no place on wikipedia.

I acknowledge that this could become a debate where we invoke many kinds of arguments, from Arendt and Adorno, on down. I hope that will not be necessary. Eliot did not support the Holocaust -- Ronald Schuchard, for one, presents evidence to the contrary -- and that would be the only reason I can see for having this stuff about fascisim in a section on antisemitism. If anything, perhaps we should start a new section of this article that addresses Eliot's (and Pound's) conservativism (and views on WWI and WWII). As is, this text in context is misleading, and a bit intellectually irresponsible. For the moment, I am removing it from the article, trusting that someone will be able to copy and paste it from above, hoping someone will copy and paste it in a new section for a longer analysis and a better article.

--ful cleane (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous editor did not remove the questioned comment from the "anti-Semitism" section and place it somewhere else, he simply deleted it. He has made clear that he believes the accusations of anti-Semitism have been overblown (I happen to agree), but the simple deletion of referenced content---in this case Eliot's own words, not someone's interpretation of same---is not a tolerable course of action. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Throne of Blood Eliot's favorite film?

It is frequently mentioned that Akira Kurosawa's film Throne of Blood was T.S. Eliot's favorite, but I can't find the original source for him actually saying or writing that. Can anyone help with a source? (For the time being, I have added a link from the Throne of Blood article to a film review at guardian.co.uk that mentions Eliot's supposed preference without giving a source.) -- Meyer (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In all that I've read about Eliot, I have never encountered any mention of that. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, today is the first I heard it myself when I saw it mentioned in the Throne of Blood article. Googling for '"t.s. eliot" "throne of blood"' give several film reviews that repeat the claim, but no original source. There's no way I could fault T.S.'s taste in films if it's true, or alternatively I don't think losing Eliot's endorsement will tarnish the film's reputation as a classic if it's not true, but it would be a nice story to verify. -- Meyer (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)